Actor: Stephen Dillane

You know him as: Thomas Jefferson (“John Adams,” 2008), Harry Vardon (“The Greatest Game Ever Played,” 2005), and as a ’semi’-antagonist Harker (“Spy Game,” 2001)

This guy is a personal favorite. I hate, hate, hate to put the “unknown” tag on him, because there is apparently no justice in this world; I do this with great reluctance. While Dillane doesn’t have the movie star glow to him, his characters usually have twice the amount of depth as their leading counterparts. He is a very natural actor to watch, and he complements the other aspects of his films by playing his part well. There is a bit of commonality to his roles. For the most part, he seems to know situations in and out. While some actors are typecast to a certain role (mafia, military, etc.), Dillane is always the smart one in the room.

In “The Greatest Game Ever Played,” Dillane takes on the role of one of the early great golfers. In this unappreciated gem, Dillane has a quiet stillness to his character and is easily the best figure to watch in the film. He plays opposite Shia LeBeouf’s lead character but is charming and a great mentor to witness in action.

In “Spy Game,” Dillane plays Harker, a higher-up official in the CIA interviewing Robert Redford’s character throughout the film. While he is certainly not the bad guy, his character’s objectives are constantly derailed by Redford’s actions. Yes, you are rooting for Redford as an audience. But while Dillane has a slight pompousness to this role, he is still likable as an authority figure with his sights on upholding the law. As one of his bigger roles, he also must play a character always a step behind, which I see as a streak of humility in Dillane’s repertoire.

As Thomas Jefferson in HBO Miniseries “John Adams,” Dillane played arguably his biggest role yet. This time heads were turned, and it earned him an Emmy Nomination. Opposite Paul Giamatti (who could’ve been on this list ten years ago), Dillane portrayed the founding father as a very direct intellectual. There are few smiles but many concise moments in Adam’s and Jefferson’s meandering friendship. Again, he’s created a character who always knows what’s going on.

I  hope for Dillane’s star to rise further than it has; it would be criminal otherwise. But at the same time, his nuanced, quiet, mentoring/informative portrayals are perfect where they are. Be on the look out for Dillane’s future roles and the awards that are sure to follow.

Michael Moore quoting Thomas Jefferson to justify his Marxism is a true highlight. Let’s just hope he’s right about unions being on the ropes. No doubt the low-to-no turnout at his astro-turfed Michigan rally earlier this month has the mega-millionaire feeling a little gloomy.

Join the discussion below…

Russell Kirk wrote, “Conservatism is not a political system, but a way of looking at the civil order.” Put more plainly, it is a world view. People often confuse being a conservative with being a Republican. However, Republican is a political party not a way of thinking. All republicans are not conservatives. In fact as we have seen over the years there are even some republicans that are not republicans. Being a conservative is really about the embrace of an idea.

There is a film I recommend everyone rent and watch. It is called “Amazing Grace.” It is the story of William Wilberforce and his struggle to end the slave trade in the British Empire.

During an especially poignant moment, the former slave and abolitionist, Olaudah Equiano, opens his shirt displaying the brand burned into his chest when he reached the West Indies from Africa. In his words it was a mark that let him know that he no longer belonged to God, but to men. This moment in the film is striking not because it affirms the cruelty of slavery. Slavery was/is not evil because of its cruelty, but because it violates the natural state of man by reducing the divine to the profane.

For me this moment eloquently illustrates the seed idea of conservatism-that all men belong to God! Thomas Jefferson was equally eloquent when he said that “some men were not born with saddles on their back and others with boots and spurs to ride them by the grace of God.” Jefferson of course codified this idea into the Keystone document of our Republic.

It is the assertion of divine ownership that is the basis upon which we claim our liberty. The natural rights of man emanate from this simple truth: God made man free and independent. As free men, we must own our bodies, our ideas, and the fruits produced by same. No man or no government can morally lay claim to that which God has made ours through his grace and mercy. It is upon this concept that rights are properly defined; upon this rock that America was founded and this idea that is the bedrock of conservatism.

Not too long ago I was in my hometown of Denver, Colorado. I was speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the Claremont Institute of which I am a Lincoln fellow. I was on the phone with a very old and dear friend of mine trying to make plans to meet following the event. “The Claremont Institute?” She asked, “What is that?”

I responded, “It’s a think tank devoted to restoring the founding principles to our national life.”

“Oh,” she said. “Ultra right wing.”

“Uhm exactly which of the founding principles do you disagree with?” I responded.

I have made it my habit to never admit to being a conservative unless I am allowed to define what that means. It is routinely and wrongly asserted that the conservative objects to change. Frankly it is a fallacious argument the new left routinely makes and one conservatives far too frequently – and to our detriment – neglect to refute. The fact is that to conserve has never meant simply arguing for the status quo. Conservatives might be more properly understood if we referred to ourselves as conservationists.

Like conservationists conservatives are not content with current conditions. Rather they are both seeking to prevent the depletion of some treasured resource. Both Conservatives and conservationists act to defend and protect; to restore, to supervise and nurture those things essential for the survival of a society or culture. Preservation is achieved through education and prudent management or husbandry.

For many citizens stepping forward and demanding that we conserve trees or some rare species of bird is looked upon as a noble undertaking. It is a pity that some of those same eyes view the act of conserving, defending, restoring and supervising the prudent management of the principles upon which this nation was founded as a whacky or evil endeavor.

Equiano was correct and the power of that small idea – to quote a young Muhammad Ali – “Shook up the world!” I would submit that conserving that idea and the principles which grew from it are as important as conserving our natural resources. Better yet I contend that idea and those principles are our greatest natural resource.

If, however, one is looking back and telling history, it might then be said that one is right or wrong about history. One might say as much about Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who was wrong about history in his remarks accusing Republicans opposed to Democratic healthcare reform of using the same stalling tactics as the defenders of slavery and Jim Crow.

In remarks intended to further paint the political right as immoral, racist and evil, Reid offered that, “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ’slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right.  When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ’slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’”

Reid is obviously confused. Republicans have no power to block passage of the senate healthcare reform bill. Nor are Republicans delaying passage of Obamacare. If Healthcare reform is being delayed and/or eventually dies it will be because one or more of Reid’s fellow Democrats decided to do the right thing and kill this Frankenbill where it lays.

Ironically, had Reid been speaking to Democrats he would not only have been currently correct, but historically accurate as well.

It was of course the Democrat Party that was late recognizing the wrongs of slavery; it was Democrats that wrote the Jim Crow laws and enforced them with fire hoses and attack dogs; it was the progressive hero Woodrow Wilson who segregated the federal government and locked Blacks out of jobs; it was the Democrat party that filibustered passage of the civil rights acts of 1964 and ‘65 and in fact has opposed every piece of civil rights legislation written since the end of the civil war.

Reid’s remarks might also be more properly directed at Democrats given that the reasoning used by new liberals of the 21st century and Democrats of the 19th century bear a striking similarity.

What is slavery except the usurping of one mans liberty and private property in service of another man? The defenders of slavery argued that the founding was a lie, that all men were in fact not created equal, that, in fact – to borrow from Thomas Jefferson – some were “born with saddles and others with boots and spurs to ride them.” They pointed to advances in science and philosophy that proved Black people were sub-species of human and thus justified their defense of slavery as a moral good. They further argued that the right to self-determination meant slave owners could transport their chattel into non-slave states thus making slavery the law of the land through the back door. The defenders of slavery declared that it was they who were on the “right side” of history and the fact of slavery was proof.

The argument is almost indistinguishable from the case the left makes in defense of abortion, which they demand be a part of what they call healthcare reform. The right to self-determination is sacred yet does not apply to children in utero as they are not human; the Rights articulated in the Declaration do not apply to them. We are an advanced society and history demands that we recognize that abortion is a moral good.

Similar arguments run through most of the new lefts social agenda.

They will argue that the founders of this great nation never intended that the rights they spoke of applied to all people in all times. For Reid and the rest of his Democratic cohorts some men were in fact born with saddles and others meant to ride them. To the new left a just government – a moral and compassionate government – is one that secures the newly discovered right to healthcare (or housing; or a job; or food) by confiscating the property of some in service to others. The fact that socialist Europe has already moved in that direction is proof enough that they are on the “right side” of history.

Reid invokes the image of America’s original sin in order to preserve the left’s inflated sense of its own virtue. In 2010 who but the most backward of all thinkers would side with the defenders of slavery? Who indeed?

Harry Reid is free to demonize Republicans and turn the past into fiction; it won’t make a bit of difference. It won’t make the healthcare reform bill any less terrible and it won’t make history anymore than an indifferent and no doubt amused observer.

Poll after poll, the United States ranks as the most “God-fearing” nation on the planet. Good on us! Whether you believe in God or not, it’s tough to deny the reality of Christian principles being an intricate part of our country’s historical fabric.

One has to ask themselves however, as arguably the last “Christian nation” around, why were our Founders so adamant about keeping the Feds grimy paws out of our churches?

Most of Europe upheld state religions, yet only 52 percent of its citizens maintain a belief in God.

My home province of Quebec force-fed its people their state-enforced brand of Catholicism for years, yet it now enjoys the title of being the single most un-churched population of the industrialized world. Compare these statistics to the well-over 80% of Americans who believe in God and one can’t help but notice a pattern there.

There’s no doubt that the Founding Fathers were deeply spiritual men (and when I say spiritual, I mean in the Judeo-Christian sense, not in the Disney/Pray-to-colors-of-the-wind type silliness). With that being said, could it be that they wanted to separate church and state, in order to PRESERVE the Christian principles that built this country?

Think about it. When has government successfully forced people to do ANYTHING that they didn’t already want to do? From forced “integration” in Detroit, to putting a tax on a morning breakfast beverage, the results have always been disastrous.

A freedom-saturated environment is conducive to the growth of faith in God. I’m guessing that might be why our Founding Fathers were much more “spirit” rather than “letter of the law” Christians like their English counterparts.

You know who else felt the same way… Jesus.

No, really. Jesus was forthright with his whole “I am the way, the truth and the light” deal (heck he was even crucified for it), but ultimately, the man left the decision up to us.

I guess what I’m wondering now is, if the Son of Man never felt the need to force anything down our throat… Where does our government get off thinking that they can?

Americans don’t want universal health care, we’re getting it. We don’t want Cap and Tax, we’re getting it. If freedom has generally bred positive choices, one would have to wonder what comes of statism. Historically, all signs point towards revolution. Hopefully it doesn’t come to that, even though the muskets would be fun to have.

As an even bigger point, I think that the systematic removal of our individual liberties is not only anti-American … it’s Anti-Christian. Ask yourself not only how the Founding Fathers would feel about the current administrations diametric opposition to their original intentions for our country, but what would Jesus think? It sounds gimmicky I’m sure, but when you get to pondering, it can be a real trip.

Of course, whenever I find myself still in doubt I ask: What would Sean Penn do?

Yet despite the Daily Star’s perversely hopeful tone, there was no violent reaction in the UK from said fanatics, nor was there one in the United States after the episode originally aired here last Thanksgiving weekend (in a grimly ironic twist, the same weekend as the devastating mass murder and mayhem committed in Mumbai by a band of – wait for it – Muslim fanatics, or as the culturally sensitive media preferred to call them at the time, “gunmen”). So why no Muslim fury over The Simpsons?

In the episode “Mypods and Broomsticks,” Homer Simpson believes a local Muslim couple are terrorists planning to blow up the Springfield Mall. It turns out, unsurprisingly, to be a misunderstanding; no plot is being hatched after all. As a spokesman for London’s Sky1 reassuringly sums up, “At the end of the show, all the issues are resolved and Homer realizes the error of his ways.” In other words, Homer was wrong to suspect Muslims – despite seeing them unload dynamite in their garage, despite hearing them discuss blowing up buildings, despite finding the schematics of the targeted local mall on their computer, and despite the fact that, in the real world, Muslim fanatics do have an impressive track record of blowing up innocent civilians.

The moral of the toon: coming forward to protect your community from a possible terrorist attack by Muslims, even with an abundance of probable cause, marks you as a buffoonish bigot. So, contrary to the Daily Star’s claim, the episode did not poke fun at Islam, but at Homer. Simpsons creator Matt Groening explained to Sky1: “Cartoons deal in stereotypes. We try to be sensitive.” Well, sensitive to the murderous rage of Islamists, anyway, since the episode ridicules the stereotyping of Muslims as terrorists, while stereotyping Homer as an Islamophobic, paranoid, ignorant American.

Thus CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, ever-ready with a quick denunciation of any criticism of Islam or any association of it with terrorism, instead whipped out a statement approving of the episode’s plotline and congratulating the show’s creators “for tackling the disturbing phenomenon of Islamophobia.” If I were CAIR, I’d be much more concerned about tackling the disturbing phenomenon of violent jihad committed by fanatics who have supposedly hijacked my religion (then again, CAIR is currently tackling revelations that it is a Muslim Brotherhood front group committed to replacing American democracy with Sharia and theocracy). What if Homer Simpson had been right, and the Muslim couple intended to murder and maim hundreds at the local mall? I guess CAIR would rather that he keep quiet and stifle his Islamophobia than act on reasonable suspicion, report the possible bombing to the authorities, and save countless lives.

Najibullah Zazi

Admittedly, those are cartoon characters in the service of comedy writers whose aim is to give the topic a light treatment; but they nonetheless reinforce the default PC position that only stupid bigots draw a connection between Islam and terrorism. In the real world, meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and his ilk are busy making that connection themselves, and political correctness won’t save you from them.

“Mark, this is all very fascinating,” I hear you say,“but doesn’t Obama’s election mean that America is now safer and more ‘well-liked’?” (A concept I previously bashed here) “Won’t our Islamist enemies respond more peacefully and diplomatically to his flaccid ‘open hand’ policy and his many cringe-worthy expressions of pro-Islam sycophancy?” First of all, no less an authority than bin Laden himself has made it clear that he considers Obama no different from his predecessor. Second, since Obama has taken office, over 40 American-born Muslims or converts have been arrested for plotting terrorist attacks here and abroad, including Najibullah Zazi, a Denver-based Muslim who apparently is connected to al Qaeda and at the center of what could have been a catastrophic terrorist plot; Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, for attempting to car-bomb a Dallas office tower; and Muslim convert Michael C. Finton, who planned to blow up a federal building in Springfield (Illinois, not the one in The Simpsons). Even as I write this, Tarek Mehanna and cohorts, apparently desirous “to participate in Islamist holy war,” were arrested in Massachusetts for plotting to attack a mall in the U.S. Are all Muslims terrorists? Of course not; indeed, the fundamentalists have no qualms about targeting Muslims who aren’t onboard with the notion of embracing Sharia and a worldwide Caliphate. But make no mistake, there are untold numbers of Islamists here in America, and many of them want to kill you.

What can you do about it? Join a great activist organization like Brigitte Gabriel’s ACT! for America, buy The Citizen Soldier Handbook: 101 Ways for Every American to Fight Terrorism by my friend Michael Mandaville and put his action items to work, or simply keep your eyes open and trust your instincts. The LAPD recently rolled out a community awareness program called iWATCH, a neighborhood watch service designed to nip terrorist plots in the bud by providing citizens with a hotline to report suspicious activity. Seems a little long in coming - nearly ten years after an alert customs officer arrested Ahmed Ressam at the Canadian border and foiled the “millennium LAX plot” in late December, 1999 - but better late than never. Skeptical, pseudonymous police officer “Jack Dunphy,” pointing out that iWATCH bluntly warns against ethnic profiling, believes the program will be hamstrung by political correctness. He may be right; time will tell. In any case, if only programs of this sort were promoted as frequently on television as Obama’s volunteerism propaganda (which includes nothing about combating Islamic terrorism), Americans would become more conscious of a local role they can play in the war-formerly-known-as-the-war-on-terror.

“The price of freedom,” said Thomas Jefferson, “is eternal vigilance.” Not willful blindness, not political correctness, not naive complacency, but vigilance. While the current administration has its hands full demonizing its critics, winning the praise of dictators worldwide, and embracing anti-American radicals and Sharia supporters, radical Islam continues to wage war against us on our own soil. It’s up to each one of us ordinary Americans, us Citizen Soldiers, to throw off the yoke of political correctness, disregard trumped-up accusations of Islamophobia or racism, and help law enforcement protect our communities and our country from the enemy among us.

Mad Magazine reigns supreme in creating a satirical crucible through which all subjects, social, cultural, political, artistic and philosophical typically pass.  The difference between valid satire and mere mockery being, of course, the elements of truth contained therein, it is sometimes difficult to rule out former as as being buried so deeply in the latter as to be inconsequential, particularly during political campaigns.  The editors of Mad would likely say that if such a line is drawn, they erase it, but nonetheless credibility rests on facts in satirical endeavors, humor being in the manner of delivery. 

Ignorance Is Strength...

All this comes to mind partially as a result of hearing, for the umpteenth time, that horrid, superciliously intoned little chant that goes “Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm, Barack Hussein Obama…” as sung by the children in that “unauthorized” Burlington Township School District video that is making the rounds.  The message being obvious and well-analyzed elsewhere, let us not forget how disturbingly cloying and memetically insidious the song is, in and of itself.  Even the 1910 Fruitgum Company, acknowledged masters of the form, would be hard-pressed to corkscrew such a tenaciously mind-numbing ditty into the listener’s skull.

–

The mind reels.  The brain, in a desperate attempt to exorcise the alien and excruciatingly insufferable mental loop, invents its own lyrics to alleviate the suffering, at least temporarily:

Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo
Barack Hussein Obama
Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo
I’ll tell my daddy and momma

Two, four, six, eight
Let’s build a liberal fascist state

Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo…

The President of the United States is
Black so all dissent is racist

Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo…

Remember all that you are taught
His problems all are Bush’s fault

Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo…

Little ones to him belong
We are weak but he is strong

Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo…

Redistributive justice rules
So we will be our Leader’s tools

Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo
Barack Hussein Obama
Ooooo, Ooooo, Ooooo
I’ll tell my daddy and momma

But not even Weird Al Yankovic would touch that one.  Better to catch a chunk of concrete upside the head at a G20 protest in the act of dissent than go there, such dissent, contrary to the President’s own honest assessment, being instantly equated with the evils of race-hatred by those who would silence opposing viewpoints.  Well-heeled anarchists can surely yell “no borders, no banks,” block traffic and hurl garbage all day to further the destruction of capitalism.  That’s healthy, and double-plus so for those who favor the particular dissent that would herald the end of  the aforementioned economic system.

Thus, the temptation to round up a gaggle of youngsters to sing the horrid little satirical ditty of unknown origin mentioned above, record it on a cell phone, and snag a cheap zillion hits by posting it to YouTube is quashed.  Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.

But, really, nobody does it better than these folks:

We have always been at war with Eastasia, er, Westhollywood...

The People’s Cube – Correct Opinions for Progressive Liberals – Political Humor & Satire

Funny stuff, highly recommended, and fans of Thomas Jefferson will likely approve.

There is no shame in artists receiving monetary compensation to sell ideas, products or a presidential agenda. When everything is transparent and contracted aboveboard, this is called advertising. When this process is whispered into being, strategized and set into motion from the shadows of government and from behind closed doors, it is propaganda.

From Sun Tzu to Psy Ops, propaganda has won wars, toppled cultures and changed civilizations. As a self-identified enlightened and educated culture, we  thought ourselves beyond such base manipulation. We were wrong.

Where were the voices of dissent on the NEA conference call when so called “artists” were asked to further the President’s agenda?

I have danced ballets and I have done commercials; one side art, the other side business. What side were the NEA recipients on?

Art for propaganda was an essential tool of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. What the heck is it doing in the White House? This should outrage freethinkers, citizens and artists from every corner of America.

The National Endowment of the Arts strategy has been traced straight to Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s policy facilitator and Grande Dame of his inner circle. As disturbing and possibly illegal as this is, it becomes truly frightening when you connect the rest of the dots:

1)      The Democrats repeated commitment to implement the Fairness Doctrine and destroy conservative talk radio.

2)      S.733: The bill that would give the President control over the internet in the event of an “emergency.”

3)      On Sept. 20, 2009, President Obama stated that he would look into bailouts for print newspapers because he is concerned that blogs will take over the world and be a threat to democracy.

Imagine that: the President of the United States is concerned free speech may be a threat to democracy. Is anybody paying attention?

Thomas Jefferson knew that a free press is essential to a free republic. Control the flow of information and you control the people. This hasn’t changed much since 1933.

Perhaps this is not as visually arresting as book burning, but the results are the same. Joseph Goebbels needed to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put forward in the most persuasive manner possible and make certain that no one in Germany could read or see anything that was damaging to the Nazi Party.

Is this that far removed from the news coverage of Honduras or the under-reporting of turnout for the 9/12 DC rally?

But I submit to you that these propaganda assaults will fail because they are lacking the one element critical to mission implementation: fear.

President Obama and his team are convinced that they are smarter than the average American citizen.  They don’t just say Middle Americans “cling to their Bibles and guns out of fear,” they truly believe it. This administration has banked on using fear to push stimulus packages, carbon taxes, bailouts and health care reform. That is their Waterloo.

Fear is not at the core of the American psyche; independence and patriotism are. And when enough Americans step back, take a breath and realize the extent of this manipulation, they awaken with a determination and that is truly frightening to those that would attempt to govern from the shadows.

The fear is now on the other foot.

The Muslim Brotherhood has long taught their operatives in the USA to attack their opponents with charges of “hate speech” and “racism” whenever they were called out to defend their positions in public. The Democrats have called out their big guns: congressmen, congresswomen and even an ex-President to do the same. Why would anyone do this if they were not “afraid” of an informed public debate?

It will not work this time. The sleeper has awakened and she sees the man behind the curtain.

Apathy can no longer be counted on as a tool for those who would seek to control the populace and erode the Constitution.

In this “Constitution Revolution,” the American people are not coming after you with guns or explosives; they are armed with truth, a desire for transparency, a desire for enlightened and informed public discourse, a demand for civic responsibility and a call to politicians to honor their oaths to the US Constitution.

Note:  No, I do not actually think that George W. Bush was a war criminal. Even though I was undercover, I felt dirty just wearing the shirt.